Поиск изображений / Image search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior: files are never downloaded or embedded, only links and metadata are returned, and each call costs 1 credit. It also warns about the context cost of a full default result (tens of kilobytes). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (When/When not, Returns, Cost) and is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it is fully repeated in two languages, which doubles length without adding new information. Still, every sentence earns its place in terms of utility.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, when to use it, cost, and practical num recommendations. It also provides context about response size, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and already includes detailed guidance (e.g., num default 12, suggestion to use 1–3 for a single image). The description repeats this guidance and adds the context-cost warning, but most parameter meaning is already present in the schema, so the added value is limited.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ищет изображения по текстовому запросу' (searches for images by text query) and clearly lists return values (direct file links, source page, resolution). It also differentiates from sibling tools like web_search and fetch_page by explicitly stating what it does not do.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('need pictures, photos, logos or diagrams') and when not to ('need text or facts — web_search; need to see what a specific page looks like — fetch_page'). This directly names alternatives and provides clear context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.